Work, employment and society Support for the work-life 25 ... A. and den Dulk, L. (2011...across countries (Den Dulk and Van Doorne-Huiskes, 2007; OECD, 2007). While there has been

Corresponding author:Anja-Kristin Abendroth, Utrecht University, Sociology/ICS, Heidelberglaan 2, 3508 TC Utrecht, Netherlands.Email: [email protected]

Work, employment and society25(2) 234–256

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0950017011398892

wes.sagepub.com

Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction

Anja-Kristin AbendrothUtrecht University, Netherlands

Laura den DulkErasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

AbstractThis article studies the relevance of different types of support for satisfaction with work life balance. More specifically, it investigates the relevance of state, instrumental and emotional workplace and family support, based on a survey of 7867 service-sector workers in eight European countries. The article starts by mapping available state, workplace and family support in order to determine which source dominates in which country and whether these sources match Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime typology. The impact of the different support sources is then examined. Findings indicate that support for employee work-life balance satisfaction has a direct and moderating effect. Finally, results show that emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace have a complementary relationship. Whereas emotional family support has a positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction, instrumental family support does not.

KeywordsEurope, service sector, work-life balance satisfaction, work-life support

IntroductionThere has been growing interest in Europe in the problems involved in combining work and family, or – more broadly – in integrating working life and personal life. Research shows that employees who have trouble balancing work and personal life perform less

Work-life balance: article

at SAGE Publications on April 23, 2015wes.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://wes.sagepub.com/

Abendroth and Dulk 235

effectively. Conflicts and tensions between the demands at work and tasks at home have a disheartening effect on employees and increase their risk of health problems; they may also lead to declining birth rates, the continued discrimination against women in the labour market and constraints on well-being and quality of life (Allen et al., 2000; OECD, 2001).

Europe has different welfare state regimes in which work-life balance support var-ies. Research has noted differences between both government and workplace support across countries (Den Dulk and Van Doorne-Huiskes, 2007; OECD, 2007). While there has been an increase in public provision all over Europe, the most extensive national work-life policies can still be found in Scandinavian countries. Regarding employer support, research shows that the public sector and large organizations are taking the lead. In other European countries, work-life balance support is seen as a private respon-sibility, with people depending mainly on help from relatives or friends. The article starts by mapping the level of work-life balance support across eight different European countries. Support available at the national, workplace and family or private-life levels is considered. Second, the article examines how available support impacts overall sat-isfaction with the way work-life balance is managed in the countries studied; a distinc-tion is made between instrumental and emotional support at the various levels (Behson, 2005; House, 1981).

This article contributes to existing literature in three different ways. First, research on the work-life interface has so far focused mainly on predictors and consequences of work-family conflict. Here a more positive approach is taken. The aim of the present study is to consider how to maximize satisfaction with work-life balance, specifically by investigating the role of support. Several studies allude to this relationship (Carlson and Perrewé, 1999; Roxburgh, 1999; Van Daalen et al., 2006; Warren and Johnson, 1995), but most have focused on only one aspect of support: support from the spouse and/or organizational support. Studies rarely include informal help from relatives and friends or paid domestic help, even though people often use a combination of formal and informal support (Knijn, 2003). Second, there is little research on support and work-life balance that considers resources at different levels in a single design. One exception is a study by Aycan and Eskin (2005), who analysed the impact of spousal support, organizational support and level of satisfaction with day care and/or home-based childcare on work-life conflict for a Turkish sample. Third, cross-national research is limited in this field (Poelmans, 2005).

The present study makes use of data taken from the EU project Quality of Life in a Changing Europe. The data were collected from service-sector workers in eight European countries: Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, Portugal, Germany, Bulgaria and Hungary.

TheorySatisfaction with work-life balanceThe term ‘work-life balance’ is widely used in the press, in public discussion, and by organizations attempting to be ‘family friendly’ (Greenhaus et al., 2003; OECD, 2001). An examination of the literature soon reveals that definitions of ‘work-life balance’ tend



236 Work, employment and society 25(2)

to focus on the interface between work and private life (Resch, 2003). For many authors, the term refers to a harmonious interface between different life domains (Frone, 2003). The most common definition is ‘… a lack of conflict or interference between work and family roles’ (Frone, 2003: 145). There is a large body of literature examining the predic-tors and outcomes of work-family conflict based on the definition given by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985: 77): ‘a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect’. This definition stresses the bidirectional relationship. Family can interfere with work and work can interfere with private life. Recently, work-family enrichment and work-life facilitation concepts have stressed positive interdependencies, noting that work can also benefit private life and vice versa (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006; Grzywacz and Marks, 2000).

Some scholars criticize the concept of balance and prefer the concept of work and personal life integration or interaction (e.g. Warhurst et al., 2008). They argue that the term work-life balance implies that work and life are distinct spheres and that time should be split equally between work and private life. Rapoport et al. (2002) point out that people may have differing priorities in that regard, and that the aim is not always an even balance between the two. However, Campbell Clark (2000) notes that not everyone wants to integrate the domains of work and family/personal life. On the contrary, some people balance their work and personal life by keeping the two strictly separate.

This article focuses on overall satisfaction with work-life balance rather than examin-ing the cross-domain transfers of experiences (Valcour, 2007). Based on Valcour’s con-cept (2007), satisfaction with work-life balance is defined as ‘an overall level of contentment resulting from an assessment of one’s degree of success at meeting work and family role demands’ (Valcour, 2007: 1512). This more positive understanding follows the example of ‘positive psychology’ and the shifting focus in public health from curative approaches to health promotion (Frone, 2003; Hurrelmann, 2003). By focusing on overall satisfaction with the way work and personal life are managed, the facts that the significance of work or family life differs between individuals and that private life encompasses more than the family role alone are taken into account.

Work-life balance support in different European countriesAny satisfactory definition of support must answer the question ‘Who gives what to whom regarding which problems?’ (House, 1981: 22). The problem investigated in this article is how to achieve a high level of satisfaction with one’s work-life balance. Sources of support can range from informal (family and friends) to professionals or semi-professionals who offer special services (House, 1981). Similarly, Esping-Andersen (1990) shows that sources of support, or in his words sources of welfare, can come from the state, market or family. These various sources of support can also be identified within the work-life balance context. Sources of support can be found at the private level (family and friends), the workplace level and the national level. For example, at the national level public policies such as publicly funded childcare, statutory leave provisions or policies regarding flexible working practices are sources of support (Kovacheva et al., 2007; Saraceno et al., 2005). Workplaces may supplement state provisions by offering working arrangements such as control over working hours and work tasks or working from home




(Den Dulk, 2001; OECD, 2001). At the private level, a partner or friends can help with household duties and childcare as well as offering emotional support, for example talking over work problems (Shaffer et al., 2005; Van Daalen et al., 2006).

Regarding the availability of support from these different sources, welfare state clas-sifications (Anttonen and Sipilä, 1996; Blossfeld and Drobnič, 2001; Esping-Andersen, 1990, 1999) suggest that the state is the main provider of support in social democratic countries such as Sweden and Finland and in former socialist countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary, although in the latter state provision has declined since the transition to a market economy (Wall, 2007). In conservative welfare states (Germany) and southern European countries (Spain, Portugal), it is the family that provides support, and in liberal countries (UK), the market is considered the main provider of work-life balance support. This article first maps the level of work-life balance support across eight European countries and examines which support source (state, workplace, family/private life) dominates. It then analyses the impact of these different support sources on work-life balance satisfaction.

Impact of work-life balance supportOpinions vary in the literature as to the impact of social support. A resources-and-demands theoretical framework reveals both a direct and a buffering effect (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

House (1981) shows that support can enhance health and well-being directly, regard-less of stress levels. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) support this idea by showing that job resources have a direct negative effect on burnout and a direct positive effect on job engagement. The assumption that support has a direct effect proposes that everybody benefits from high levels of support (House, 1981).

In addition, the resources-and-demands approach suggests that resources can also help people cope with demands (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Job demands may consist of long hours, shift work, frequent travel or job pressure. Examples of private-life demands are care responsibilities for older relatives and chil-dren. These demands are not necessarily negative when adequate resources exist to meet them (Moen and Chermack, 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). ‘Social support could mitigate or buffer the effect of potentially stressful objective situations (such as a boring job, heavy workloads, unemployment) by causing people initially to perceive the situation as less threatening or stressful’ (House, 1981: 37–38). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) therefore expected to find a negative relationship between demands and resources in their study, since job resources potentially reduce job demands.

Transferring this idea to the work-life balance context, evidence for this relationship can be found in prior studies. Regarding workplace support, for example, Valcour (2007) showed that working hours have a negative impact on satisfaction with the work-family balance and that job complexity and job control have positive impacts. However, other studies have focused mainly on the impact of workplace and family characteristics on perceived work-family conflict, rather than satisfaction with the work-life balance. For instance, research indicates that work-family policies are negatively related to the work-to-family conflict (Thomas and Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al., 1999). Allen




(2001) suggested that the availability of family supportive benefits might be indirectly related to work-life conflict through the perceived family supportiveness of the organiza-tion. Her results indicate that workers who perceived the organization as less family supportive experienced more work-life conflict and less job satisfaction than employees who perceived their organization as more family supportive.

Prominent in the research on private-life support are studies on spousal support. Existing studies show both a direct and a buffering effect of spousal support on work-family conflict (e.g. Matsui et al., 1995; Van Daalen et al., 2006). Other sources of support, such as help from grandparents, friends, neighbours and paid domestic help, are a less frequent topic of research.

Regarding state support, several studies map instrumental support on a national level, that is, the level and nature of public work-life policies: childcare facilities, leave arrange-ments and policies regarding working hours (Den Dulk, 2001; Kovacheva et al., 2007; Saraceno et al., 2005). However, less is known about their impact on work-life balance satisfaction.

In conclusion, the following hypotheses are formulated on the impact of national, workplace and private-life support:

1. (Hypothesis 1) The greater the support at the national, workplace and private level, the higher the level of work-life balance satisfaction.

2. (Hypothesis 2) Support at the national, workplace and private level moderates the negative relationship between work and household demands and work-life bal-ance satisfaction.

The difference between emotional and instrumental supportBesides distinguishing between different sources of support, the existing literature also differentiates between instrumental and emotional support in the private domain and the workplace. Employer work-life policies can be seen as instrumental support in the workplace. Emotional support, on the other hand, can come from the supervisor as well as from colleagues when they show empathy for the employee’s work-life balance situation. In the private domain, emotional support may come from the spouse, friends, neighbours and relatives. Instrumental support is, for example, paid domestic help. At the national level, instrumental support encompasses public work-life policies aimed at creating a successful work-life balance. Emotional support, however, is harder to identify at the country level, because it concerns people one interacts with directly.

The distinction between emotional and instrumental support raises questions about the relationship between them. Research findings suggest that instrumental support in the workplace is not enough to achieve a successful work-life balance (Den Dulk and Peper, 2007; Lyness and Kropf, 2005; Warren and Johnson, 1995). Supervisor and col-league support is crucial for the actual take-up of workplace policies and for managing work and personal life. Behson (2005) found that emotional support explains more variance in work-life conflict than work-family benefits. However, there is no evidence that this finding is also true for work-life balance satisfaction. Moreover, emotional support alone is probably insufficient. Arrangements such as childcare or leave also




appear to be necessary. It is therefore more likely that the two forms of support enhance each other’s positive impacts as formulated in the following hypotheses:

1. (Hypothesis 3a) Instrumental and emotional workplace support reinforce each other’s positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction.

2. (Hypothesis 3b) Instrumental and emotional private-life support reinforce each other’s positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction.

The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 visualizes the hypothesized relationships. The effect of demands on work-life balance satisfaction is shown by a dotted arrow, as this relationship is not a central focus of this study. Our study focuses on support. Demands are included to determine whether support has a moderating effect. Previous work-life conflict research suggests including the following variables as demands: work pressure, working time, care responsibilities outside the household and children at home (Frone, 2003; Moen and Chermack, 2005; Valcour, 2007). In addition, gender is added as a control variable. Women still bear the main responsibility for domestic work, mak-ing it harder for them to achieve a satisfactory work-life balance (Rothbard and Dumas, 2006; Valcour, 2007). Findings regarding the effect of gender are not always conclusive, however (Frone, 2003; Rothbard and Dumas, 2006). Another control variable is education. Employees with a higher education are often employed in professional and managerial jobs characterized by greater responsibility and blurring boundaries that may lead to work-home interference (taking work home and being preoccupied with work at home) (Milliken and Dunn-Jensen, 2005). Finally, the analysis includes age as a control

Controls: Gender, education, age, sector

Instrumental supportNational level: public policiesWorkplace level: job control andflexible work arrangementsPrivate level: having a partner, paidand informal help with domestic tasks

Work-life balance satisfaction

Demands

- Working hours- Work pressure- Care responsibilities outside the household- Children at home

Emotional supportWorkplace level: Supervisor andcolleague supportPrivate-life level: Quality ofrelationship with relatives, social lifeand absence of conflict with partner

–

–

+

++

–

Figure 1. Conceptual model – influence of support factors on work-life balance satisfaction




variable since previous research has shown that life satisfaction in general increases with age (Argyle, 2001).

Research methodThe data were collected during the EU project Quality of Work and Life in a Changing Europe among a sample of 7867 service-sector workers in eight European countries (sample size per country varies from 676 respondents in Sweden to 1373 respondents in Portugal). The service sector was chosen because it represents a growing sector of the economy encompassing both professional workers and lower skilled workers. In particu-lar the latter is important, since existing studies mainly address professional or manage-rial workers (e.g. Casper et al., 2007). In each country, a national team of researchers1 surveyed employees from a bank/insurance company, a retail company, an IT/telecom company and a public hospital. In each country similar service-sector organizations were selected to increase comparability. Large banks/insurance companies were included because they are often at the forefront regarding supportive work-life policies. They are highly visible in society and therefore sensitive to institutional pressures to offer work-life balance support (Den Dulk, 2001). Retail companies (shop chains) were added because of the high proportion of lower skilled jobs and female workers. IT and telecom companies are characterized by highly competitive careers and a high proportion of pro-fessional workers and large hospitals located in major cities are included as representa-tives of the public sector. The sample sizes differ somewhat across sectors: 1651 respondents working in hospitals, 2628 respondents in the telecommunications sector, 1670 respondents in the retail sector and 1918 respondents in the banking/insurance sector. Sector is therefore added as a control variable. Furthermore, the response rates for Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden are relatively high and the response rates for Hungary and the UK relatively low. The response rates lie between 17 per cent and 89 per cent (Van der Lippe and Den Dulk, 2008). The questionnaire was developed collaboratively by national researchers to take account of the diverse national perspectives. It was translated into the national languages and back-translated to ensure comparability.

MeasurementTo measure satisfaction with the work-life balance (WLB), three items from the original five-item work-life balance satisfaction scale developed by Valcour (2007) were used. One of the two items on resources to meet work and family demands was selected: ‘how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way you divide your time between work and personal life’. In addition, a selection was made of two out of the three items that measure respondents’ satisfaction with combining work and personal life: ‘your ability to meet the needs of your job and the needs of your personal or family life’ and ‘the opportunity you have to do your job well and yet be able to perform home-related duties properly’. Possible responses ranged from ‘very satisfied’ to ‘very dissatisfied’ on a five-point scale (Cronbach’s alpha on the three items is 0.894).

Support on the national level was not included in the data set. Additional informa-tion about public policies regarding leave arrangements, public childcare and flexible




work arrangements was used to describe support on this level (see Appendix). Leave arrangements were classified as highly supportive if the state provided long and well paid maternity and parental leave and encouraged men’s involvement in caring tasks with paternity leave or special daddy quotas. Finland, Sweden, Bulgaria and Hungary were rated as highly supportive given their generous leave arrangements. For instance, in Sweden working parents were entitled to 18 months parental leave paid at 80 per cent of earnings. Regarding childcare, the percentage of children in formal childcare aged 0-2, childcare costs as the percentage of the family net income and shortages in available childcare were used as indicators for high, moderate or low public childcare support. Sweden and Finland score high on public childcare support while Portugal and the UK score relatively low. Entitlements regarding flexible working arrangements were classified as highly supportive if they allowed employees to reduce or enhance working hours according to family or personal needs. Portugal, Hungary and Bulgaria lack such entitlements while in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland legislation offered the most extensive entitlement to flexibility. Public work-life policies tend to focus on working parents and less on workers without children or workers who care for elderly relatives. The flexible working arrangements in Germany and the Netherlands are exceptions to this, in that they apply to all employees instead of only to working parents with young children, as was the case in Sweden, Finland, Portugal and the UK.

In the analysis, dummy variables were included to show whether the situation in the various countries had an impact on work-life balance satisfaction and whether differ-ences between countries occur. This method is an indirect measure of state support, but the limited number of countries involved ruled out multi-level analysis.

Instrumental support in the workplace was measured by the following variables: use of flexible starting and finishing times, compressed work week and working from home (yes/no) in the past 12 months. Flexible work arrangements are treated as sepa-rate variables in the analysis because they vary in their impact on the combination of work and personal life (Peters et al., 2009). Moreover, these variables have a rather low correlation (see correlation matrix in the Appendix) and do not form a reliable scale. In addition, job control was measured by seven items, five from the scale of Karasek and Theorell (1990) and two new ones which refer to control over work time and place (Cronbach’s alpha 0.792).

Emotional support in the workplace was measured by three items referring to supervi-sor support and three to colleague support, such as ‘I am comfortable discussing my pri-vate life with my direct superior’ and ‘My colleagues support employees who (temporarily) want to reduce their working hours for private reasons’. The measuring instrument was based on the work of Thompson et al. (1999) and Dikkers et al. (2004, 2007). Possible responses ranged from ‘entirely agree’ (5) to ‘entirely disagree’ (1). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.696 for supervisor support to 0.747 for colleague support.

Instrumental support at the private level was measured by including information on paid domestic help and help with domestic tasks by family members, friends or neighbours. Answers ranged from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always (every day)’ (4). In order to condense the infor-mation for analysis purposes, help from relatives and help from friends and neighbours were combined as informal help. Moreover, having a partner was included as an indicator of instrumental support at the private level since it allows people to share domestic tasks.




Emotional support for the work-life balance at private level was measured by the questions: ‘Broadly speaking, how do you feel about your social life?’ and ‘How do you feel about your relationship with your relatives?’ Possible responses ranged from ‘very good’ (1) to ‘very bad’ (5). The data suggest that the two variables refer to different constructs since correlation and Cronbach’s alpha are too weak to form a reliable scale. The variables were recoded to arrive at higher values for high levels of emotional support. Within the dataset, these questions most closely represented emotional support in private life, although it should be noted that they do not refer directly to work-life bal-ance support. Absence of spousal conflicts concerning domestic work was also included as an indicator for emotional support. In order to include both single respondents and respondents with a partner, the single respondents were assigned the mean score of the respondents with a partner on the conflict question.

Relevant data about work and household demands were also included in the analysis with a question about actual working hours,2 perceived work pressure, having children or not and whether people take care of any relatives or friends. Gender, education (using the ISCED classification), age and sector were included as control variables.

FindingsSatisfaction with work-life balanceThe results regarding average work-life balance satisfaction indicate that employees in the Netherlands had the highest satisfaction rate, with a mean of 10.89. The satisfaction rate in the social democratic countries was also high, with means of 10.48 for Sweden and 10.27 for Finland. The lowest values were found in Portugal and the UK with a mean of 9.50 and 9.58 respectively. The values for the post-communist countries were only slightly higher with a mean of 9.73 for Hungary and a mean of 10.07 for Bulgaria. Germany had a moderate satisfaction rate (10.12). For all countries, the standard devia-tion ranges between 2.0 and 3.0. The differences between the countries are significant.

Work-life balance support on the national, workplace and private levelTable 1 shows that the degree of support varies between countries and does not always correspond with existing welfare regime typologies. A large amount of support on the national, workplace and private level is typical for service-sector workers in Sweden. The mean values in Sweden for emotional support in the workplace and private life and for instrumental workplace support are both high, combined with a high level of state support. One exception is the low reported use of paid and informal domestic help, suggesting that Swedish service-sector workers received little instrumental support at the private level. Finland had similar levels of support, except for instrumental support in the workplace. The Finnish service-sector workers in our study gave relatively low scores for job control and take-up of flexible work arrangements. Dutch service-sector workers reported relatively high levels of support. Together with the Swedish and Finnish workers, the Dutch workers also had a high average score for work-life bal-ance satisfaction.




Tabl

e 1.

Sta

te, w

orkp

lace

, pri

vate

wor

k-lif

e ba

lanc

e su

ppor

t pe

r co

untr

y

Supp

ort

leve

lFa

ctor

sC

ount

ries

SEFI

DE

NL

PTBG

HU

UK

Nat

iona

l le

vel

supp

ort

Lea

ve (

Leng

th, p

aym

ent

& g

ende

r)H

igh

Hig

hM

oder

ate

Low

to

mod

erat

eLo

w t

o m

oder

ate

Hig

hH

igh

Low

to

mod

erat

eC

hild

care

(A

vaila

bilit

y, af

ford

abili

ty &

co

vera

ge)

Hig

hH

igh

Low

to

Mod

erat

eM

oder

ate

to h

igh

Low

M

oder

ate

Mod

erat

eLo

w

Enc

our

agem

ent

of f

lexi

ble

arra

ngem

ents

(En

title

men

ts)

Hig

hH

igh

Mod

erat

eH

igh

Low

Low

Low

Mod

erat

e

Wo

rkpl

ace

leve

l su

ppo

rt

Sup

ervi

sor

supp

ort

***

(M; R

: 3-1

2)10

.62

10.1

19.

2910

.59

9.23

8.69

8.91

9.28

Co

lleag

ue

sup

po

rt**

* (M

; R: 3

-12)

10.9

511

.02

9.68

11.2

09.

289.

099.

3010

.02

Job

cont

rol*

** (

M; R

: 7–2

8)16

.57

12.6

815

.22

15.3

516

.21

14.3

315

.83

13.1

9F

lexi

ble

star

ting

and

fini

shin

g ti

mes

(M

; R: 1

-0)

.72

.33

.56

.31

.39

.34

.38

.37

Co

mpr

esse

d w

ork

wee

k (M

; R: 1

-0)

.13

.10

.20

.12

.09

.23

.13

.16

Wo

rkin

g fr

om

ho

me

(M; R

: 1-0

).2

6.1

0.1

5.1

4.1

1.0

6.1

5.1

5P

riva

te

leve

l su

ppo

rt

Qu

alit

y re

lati

on

ship

wit

h re

lati

ves*

** (

M; R

: 1-5

)4.

043.

893.

734.

124.

074.

113.

853.

93

Qua

lity

soci

al li

fe**

*(M

; R: 1

-5)

3.90

3.66

3.69

3.86

3.41

3.14

3.20

3.24

Info

rmal

hel

p w

ith

dom

esti

c ta

sks*

** (

M; R

: 2-8

)2.

182.

152.

132.

232.

442.

572.

392.

25

Pai

d he

lp w

ith

dom

esti

c ta

sks*

**(M

; R: 1

-4)

1.10

1.03

1.08

1.24

1.71

1.13

1.10

1.13

Abs

ence

of c

onfli

ct w

ith

part

ner

abou

t ho

useh

old

task

s***

(M

; R: 1

-5)

3.65

3.54

3.66

3.87

3.54

3.56

3.87

3.57

Hav

ing

a pa

rtne

r***

(M

; R: 1

-0)

.74

.77

.74

.80

.72

.67

.79

.77

Not

e: **

* p

≤ 0.

001;

**

p ≤

0.01

; *p

≤ 0.

05.

Abb

revi

atio

ns: M

= M

ean;

R =

Ran

ge




Relatively low levels of support were found in the British sample: medium/low sup-port on the national level, low means for instrumental support in the workplace and for emotional and instrumental support in private life. In the former socialist countries, Bulgaria and Hungary, state support had been traditionally generous, although less state support was found for flexible work arrangements than in the West European countries. Emotional support from supervisors and colleagues got relatively low scores in Bulgaria and Hungary. By contrast, emotional and instrumental support in private life received relatively high scores. In Germany, the values for emotional support in private life were relatively low. In the other support resources, Germany took a middle position. In Portugal, national support received relatively low marks, but the scores for private support were relatively high, i.e. support from relatives and friends, with the highest score for paid domestic help across the eight countries.

Impact of support on satisfaction with work-life balanceTo determine the direct and buffering effect of various support types, a hierarchical regression analysis of all countries was performed (Table 2). Since the regression analysis was performed on the total sample, it was possible to evaluate national support by includ-ing country dummies. Sweden was used as a reference category because it provided the highest level of national support.

First, a baseline model (Model 1) is presented, which includes workplace and house-hold demands and control variables. As expected, demands were important in explaining work-life balance satisfaction, in particular, job demands.

Model 2 adds instrumental workplace support and Model 3 emotional workplace support. The findings indicate that instrumental and emotional workplace support increases the explained variance. In particular, job control and supervisor support posi-tively impact work-life balance satisfaction. Colleague support also promotes work-life balance satisfaction, but the effect is reduced once private support is added. Contrary to our hypothesis, the take-up of flexible work arrangements does not make a significant impact.

Model 4 includes instrumental private-life support and Model 5 emotional private-life support. Comparing these two models suggests that emotional support has the greatest relevance. Adding instrumental private-life support has no significant effect, except for having a partner. However, the impact of having a partner disappears once emotional private-life support factors are added. The same applies to colleague support.

Model 6 takes national support into account alongside the other support, demand and control variables. As can be seen, after including the country dummies the explained vari-ance increased from .161*** to .331***. The national arrangements in Germany were significantly less supportive than the arrangements in Sweden. Moreover, the findings indicate that national arrangements in Finland and Bulgaria contributed more to the work-life balance satisfaction of service-sector workers than did the arrangements in Sweden.

The table ends with Model 7, which includes significant interaction effects investigat-ing the buffering effects of support on the significant negative effects of demands. The results reveal two buffering effects: quality of social life and informal help with domestic tasks, both of which appear to moderate the impact of work pressure. Moreover, adding




Tabl

e 2.

Reg

ress

ion

anal

ysis

exp

lain

ing

satis

fact

ion

with

wor

k-lif

e ba

lanc

e (N

=59

04)

Mod

el 1

M

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4M

odel

5M

odel

6M

odel

7

Dem

ands

:W

ork

pres

sure

-.32

5***

-.31

0***

-.29

0***

-.29

0***

-.24

8***

-.27

5***

-.27

2***

Act

ual w

orki

ng h

ours

-.15

4***

-.18

6***

-.16

0***

-.15

6***

-.12

1***

-.13

1***

-.13

0***

Car

e re

spon

sibi

litie

s-.

031*

-.02

9*-.

027*

-.02

5*-.

012

-.02

1-.

021

Chi

ldre

n at

hom

e-.

060*

**-.

070*

**-.

068*

**-.

077*

**-.

010

-.01

8-.

017

Inst

rum

enta

l wo

rkpl

ace

supp

ort

:Jo

b co

ntro

l.1

48**

*.1

23**

*.1

24**

.083

***

.107

***

.106

***

Flex

ible

sta

rtin

g an

d fin

ishi

ng t

imes

-.01

4-.

022

-.02

2-.

029*

-.01

8-.

019

Com

pres

sed

wor

k w

eek

.012

.010

.010

.009

.002

.002

Wor

king

from

hom

e-.

015

-.02

3-.

024

-.02

2-.

024

-.02

4E

mo

tio

nal w

ork

plac

e su

ppo

rt:

Supe

rvis

or s

uppo

rt.1

08**

*.1

07**

*.0

78**

*.0

73**

*.0

73**

*C

olle

ague

sup

port

.063

***

.063

***

.026

*.0

26.0

26In

stru

men

tal p

riva

te-l

ife s

uppo

rt:

Info

rmal

hel

p w

ith d

omes

tic t

asks

-.00

9-.

006

-.01

8-.

022

Paid

hel

p w

ith d

omes

tic t

asks

-.01

4-.

031*

-.01

1-.

012

Hav

ing

a pa

rtne

r.0

36**

.007

.005

.005

Em

oti

ona

l pri

vate

-life

sup

port

:Q

ualit

y of

rel

atio

nshi

p w

ith r

elat

ives

.098

***

.086

***

.086

***

Qua

lity

of s

ocia

l life

.289

***

.298

***

.295

***

Abs

ence

of c

onfli

ct w

ith p

artn

er a

bout

ho

useh

old

task

s.0

76**

*.0

78**

*.0

78**

*

Nat

iona

l lev

el s

uppo

rt:

Cou

ntry

(R

ef. C

at. S

wed

en)

Finl

and

.066

***

.065

***

UK

.011

.011

Net

herla

nds

-.02

6-.

025

Ger

man

y -.

052*

*-.

052*

*




Tabl

e 2.

(C

ontin

ued)

Mod

el 1

M

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4M

odel

5M

odel

6M

odel

7

Port

ugal

-.

013

-.01

3H

unga

ry.0

17.0

16Bu

lgar

ia

.102

***

.100

***

Inte

ract

ion

effe

cts:

Wor

k pr

essu

re*

Qua

lity

of s

ocia

l life

.027

*W

ork

pres

sure

* In

form

al h

elp

with

do

mes

tic t

asks

.026

*

Co

ntro

l var

iabl

es:

Gen

der:

Fem

ale

-.02

2-.

007

-.01

5-.

015

-.03

6**

-.05

0***

-.04

9***

Educ

atio

n hi

gh

.000

-.01

5-.

015

-.01

2-.

013

-.04

1**

-.04

2**

Age

.099

***

.082

***

.087

***

.082

***

.066

***

.075

***

.073

***

Sect

or (

Ref

. Cat

. Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ion)

Reta

il .0

08.0

02.0

02.0

05.0

06.0

05.0

07H

ospi

tal

.042

**.0

33*

.039

**.0

41**

.030

*.0

41**

.041

**Ba

nk

.006

.005

.008

.011

-.00

7.0

00.0

00E

xpl.

vari

ance

(Adj

uste

d R

²).1

61**

*.1

78**

*.1

98**

*.1

99**

*.3

14**

*.3

30**

*.3

31**

*

Not

es: *

** p

≤ 0

.001

; **

p ≤

0.01

; *p

≤ 0.

05A

bbre

viat

ions

: Ref

. Cat

. = R

efer

ence

Cat

egor

y.C

ontin

uous

var

iabl

es w

ere

cent

red

arou

nd t

he m

ean




support variables reduced the negative impact of job pressure, working hours, care responsibilities and children at home. Significant effects were found for the control vari-ables gender, education, age and the hospital sector. The latter suggests that service-sector workers in the public sector were more satisfied with their work-life balance than workers in the private sector, such as IT/telecommunications. This finding corresponds to research showing that the public sector is in general more supportive of work-life bal-ance issues than the private sector (Den Dulk, 2001).

To conclude, support appears to be important in explaining satisfaction with work-life balance. Adding support variables in the regression model increased the explained variance and direct positive effects of support on satisfaction with work-life balance were found. Moreover, support was revealed to have a buffering effect with respect to the negative impact of job demands on work-life balance satisfaction. This finding provides evidence for Hypothesis 1, which predicted a direct effect for the different support options and Hypothesis 2, which predicted a moderating effect. Comparing emotional and instrumental support in the workplace and in private life shows that both impact positively on work-life balance satisfaction except for flexible work arrangements and informal or paid household help, suggesting that both instrumental and emotional support are needed for higher work-life balance satisfaction. In the case of private-life support, however, findings are less straightforward. Only emotional support increases the explained variance substantially and positively influences work-life balance satisfaction, a finding that runs contrary to Hypothesis 3b. No significant interaction effects were found between emotional and instrumental support in private life or the workplace, indicating that instrumental and emotional support do not tend to reinforce each other. Rather, emotional support and instrumental support in the workplace appear to have a complementary relationship.

Discussion and concluding remarksThis article examines the impact of different sources of work-life balance support on work-life balance satisfaction among service-sector workers in eight European coun-tries. The findings indicate that the countries under study differ in the support available from different sources (state, workplace, private life). As expected for a southern European country, service-sector workers in Portugal report a relatively high level of private-life support and moderate state and workplace support. Within the UK, a liberal welfare state, service-sector workers do not report high levels of workplace support, as might be expected based on the welfare state typology of Esping-Andersen (1990, 1999). In Germany, an example of the conservative welfare state regime, workers reported a fairly low level of family support. The Scandinavian countries score high marks on state support, but the level of reported workplace and family support is also relatively high. The same is true for Dutch service-sector workers. Hence, the Netherlands appears to resemble the Scandinavian countries more than the other conservative welfare state in this study (Germany). A closer look at the results for the social democratic countries and the Netherlands supports the idea that state support can stimulate workplace support (Den Dulk, 2001). The state can sensitize employers to the topic of work-life balance and encourage them to offer support. However, the post-communist countries in this study,




with their strong tradition of state support, do not show a similar pattern. Workplace sup-port in Bulgaria and Hungary is relatively modest. There, the transition to a market econ-omy has been accompanied by job insecurity and unemployment, which may limit employer support expectations (Kovacheva et al., 2007). Due to the limited number of organizations in this study and the focus on the service sector, only tentative conclusions can be drawn regarding the relationship between different levels of support. Future research should elaborate on the finding that the variation in support does not always follow Esping-Andersen’s welfare regime typology (1990, 1999) by extending the number of workplaces and sectors within countries.

The results suggest that support has a direct and buffering effect on work-life balance satisfaction. In the workplace, job control and supervisor support appear to be crucial. In private life, emotional support, i.e. having a good relationship with family and friends and little or no spousal conflict regarding domestic chores, has a positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction. This study’s findings also indicate that instrumental and emotional workplace support appear to have a complementary relationship and that both are needed for a high level of work-life balance satisfaction.

Nevertheless, not all types of support appear to have a positive impact on work-life balance satisfaction. To begin with, although flexible work arrangements are increas-ingly put forward as potential solutions for work-family conflicts (Warhurst et al., 2008), they were found to have not a positive but rather a possible negative impact. Research indicates that the impact of flexible work arrangements depends very much on the degree of employee control over working time and place. Hence, not flexibility as such but the degree of control increases people’s ability to manage work and family demands suc-cessfully, in line with the positive impact of job control found in this and previous stud-ies. An additional argument put forward in the debate on the impact of flexible work arrangements is that flexibility may result in blurred boundaries, making it harder to free oneself from work (Peters et al., 2009).

Second, the findings indicate a possible negative relationship between informal and paid household help and work-life balance satisfaction. Causality might be an explana-tion for this finding. Domestic chores may be considered an individual responsibility and receiving help with them inappropriate. Hence, people may turn to family and friends or hire domestic help when work-life balance problems occur rather than viewing it as a possible resource to manage work and personal life. In order to increase our knowledge of the role of instrumental support in the private domain, longitudinal research is needed.

Emotional support in the private domain appears to be highly relevant. Both a direct effect and a buffering effect for work pressure were found. However, the method used to measure emotional support from relatives and friends can be improved. Future research should develop more refined measures for such support. Future research should also consider more fine-grained measures for national instrumental support for different groups of employees. National policies tend to focus on working parents and one may question whether these policies also form a proxy for work-life support for workers with-out children.

In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that the state, the employer and the family all contribute to employee satisfaction with the work-life balance and to help employees deal with the demands placed on them in different life domains. Moreover,




the results indicate that support options should be evaluated for their specific usefulness and implemented with caution.

AcknowledgementsThe research has been funded by the European Commission Sixth Framework Programme Project ‘Quality of Life in a Changing Europe’ (Quality, 028945).

Notes1 Utrecht University – Tanja van der Lippe, Laura den Dulk, Anneke van Doorne-Huiskes, Joop

Schippers and Els van Kampen; University of Hamburg – Sonja Drobnič, Barbara Beham, Roland Verwiebe and Patrick Präg; CIES-Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology – Maria das Dores Guerreiro and Eduardo Rodrigues; University of Jyväskylä – Jouko Nätti, Timo Anttila and Sakari Taipale; Central European University – Eva Fodor and Dorottya Redai; New Europe Centre for Regional Studies – Siyka Kovacheva and Stanimir Kabaivanov; Göteborg University – Margareta Bäck-Wiklund, Linda Lane and Stephan Szücs; Middlesex University – Suzan Lewis, Annabelle Mark, David Etherington and Mick Brookes.

2 Actual working hours were not available in Finland and contractual hours were used instead.

ReferencesAllen TD (2001) Family supportive work environments: the role of organizational perceptions.

Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(3): 414–35.Allen TD, Herst DEL, Bruck CS, et al. (2000) Consequences associated with work-to-family

conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(2): 278–308.

Anttonen A and Sipilä J (1996) European social care services: is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy 6(2): 82–100.

Argyle M (2001) The Psychology of Happiness. London: Routledge.Aycan Z and Eskin M (2005) Relative contributions of childcare, spousal support and organiza-

tional support in reducing work-family conflict for men and women: the case of Turkey. Sex Roles 53(7/8): 453–71.

Behson SJ (2005) The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(3): 487–500.

Blossfeld HP and Drobnič S (2001) Careers of Couples in Contemporary Societies: From Male Breadwinner to Dual Earner Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell Clark S (2000) Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations 53(6): 747–70.

Carlson DS and Perrewé PL (1999) The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship: an examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management 25(4): 513–40.

Casper WJ, Eby LT, Bordeaux C, et al. (2007) A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 28–43.

Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, et al. (2001) The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 499–512.

Dikkers J, Geurts S, den Dulk L, Peper B and Kompier MAJ (2004) Relations among work-home culture, the utilization of work-home arrangements, and work-home interference. International Journal of Stress Management 11(4): 323–45.

Dikkers J, Geurts SAE, den Dulk L, Peper B, Taris TW and Kompier MAJ (2007) Dimensions of work-home culture and their relations with the use of work-home arrangements and work-home interactions. Work and Stress 21(2): 155–72.




Den Dulk L (2001) Work-Family Arrangements in Organisations: A Cross-National Study in the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.

Den Dulk L and Peper B (2007) Working parents’ use of work-life policies. Sociologia, Problemas e Práticas 53: 51–70.

Den Dulk L and Van Doorne-Huiskes A (2007) Social policy in Europe: its impact on families and work. In: Crompton R et al. (eds) Women, Men, Work and Family in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 35–57.

Esping-Andersen G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.Esping-Andersen G (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. New York: Oxford

University Press.Frone MR (2003) Work-family balance. In: Quick JC and Tetrick LE (eds) Handbook of

Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, DC: APA, 143–62.Greenhaus JH and Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy

of Management Review 10(1): 76–88.Greenhaus JH and Powell GN (2006) When work and family are allies: a theory of work-family

enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31(1): 72–92.Greenhaus JH, Collins KM and Shaw JD (2003) The relation between work-family balance and

quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63(3): 510–31.Grzywacz JG and Marks NF (2000) Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: an ecological

perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5(1): 111–26.

House JS (1981) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Hurrelmann K (2003) Gesundheitssoziologie. Weinheim and München: Juventa.Karasek R and Theorell T (1990) Health Work-Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of

Working Life. New York: Basic Books.Knijn T (2003) Verzorgingsstaten, zorgsystemen en zorgpakketten. Mogelijkheden voor de com-

binatie van zorg en arbeid in vergelijkend perspectief. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken 19(1): 53–66.

Kovacheva S, Kabaivanov S and Andreev T (2007) Comparative Report on the Institutional Context of Work and Quality of Life. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Lyness KS and Kropf MB (2005) The relationships of national gender equality and organisational support with work-family balance: a study of European managers. Human Relations 58(1): 33–60.

Matsui T, Ohsawa T and Onglatco ML (1995) Work-family conflict and the stress-buffering effects of husband support and coping behavior among Japanese married working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior 47(2): 178–92.

Milliken FJ and Dunn-Jensen LM (2005) The changing time demands of managerial and profes-sional work: implications for managing the work-life boundary. In: Kossek EE and Lambert SJ (eds) Work and Life Integration, Organizational, Cultural, and Individual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 43–60.

Moen P and Chermack K (2005) Gender disparities in health: strategic selection, careers, and cycles of control. Journals of Gerontology 60B(Special Issue II): 99–108.

Moss P (ed.) (2009) International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2009. Employment Relations Research Series 102. London: BIS. Available (consulted 31 January 2011) at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file52778.pdf

OECD (2001) Balancing work and family life: helping parents into paid employment. In: OECD Employment Outlook 2001. Paris: OECD, 29–166.

OECD (2007) Babies and Bosses, Reconciling Work and Family Life. A Synthesis of Findings for OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.




Peters P, Den Dulk L and Van der Lippe T (2009) The effects of time-spatial flexibility and new working conditions on employees’ work-life balance: the Dutch case. Community, Work and Family 12(3): 279–98.

Plantenga J and Remery C (2005) Reconciliation of Work and Private Life: A Comparative Review of Thirty European Countries. Luxembourg: EC.

Poelmans SAY (2005) Work and Family: An International Research Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rapoport R, Bailyn L, Fletcher JK, et al. (2002) Beyond Work-Family Balance. Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Resch M (2003) Work-Life Balance: neue Wege der Vereinbarkeit von Berufs- und Privatleben? GfA Herbstkonferenz 29. und 30. September 2003. Aachen/Stuttgart: Ergonomia Verlag.

Rothbard NP and Dumas TL (2006) Research perspectives: managing the work-home interface. In: Jones F et al. (eds) Work-Life Balance: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Psychology Press, 71–89.

Roxburgh S (1999) Exploring the work and family relationship: gender differences in the influence of parenthood and social support on job satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues 20(6): 771–88.

Saraceno C, Olagnero M and Torrioni P (2005) First European Quality of Life Survey: Families, Work and Social Networks. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Schaufeli WB and Bakker AB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(3): 293–315.

Shaffer MA, Joplin JRW, Francesco AM, et al. (2005) Easing the pain: a cross-cultural study of support resources and their influence on work-family conflict. In: Poelmans SAY (ed.) Work and Family; An International Research Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thomas LT and Ganster DC (1995) Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(1): 6–15.

Thompson CA, Beauvais LL and Lyness KS (1999) When work-family benefits are not enough: the influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(3): 392–415.

Valcour M (2007) Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6): 1512–23.

Van Daalen G, Willemsen TM and Sanders K (2006) Reducing work-family conflict through different sources of social support. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69(3): 462–76.

Van der Lippe T and Den Dulk L (2008) Fourth Consolidated Report on Cross National Comparison. Deliverable [Report] 2.4. Utrecht: Utrecht University.

Wall K (2007) Leave policy models and the articulation of work and family in Europe: a comparative perspective: In: Moss P and Wall K (eds) International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2007. London: Department of Trade and Industry, 25–43.

Warhurst C, Eikhof DR and Haunschild A (2008) Work Less, Live More? Critical Analysis of the Work-Life Boundary. Houndsmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Warren JA and Johnson PJ (1995) The impact of workplace support on work-family role strain. Family Relations 44(2): 163–69.




AppendixTable A. Statutory leave policies in each country

Country Maternity leave Paternity leave Parental leave

Sweden - 10 days; paid 80% of earnings

420 days; (Daddy Quota 60 days); Paid: 330 days 80% of earnings, 90 days at flat rate

Finland 105 weekdays, paid at 43% – 82% of earnings

18 days; possible to get 12 days extra; pay earnings-related with minimum flat rate

158 weekdays or care leave until the child is 3 years old; pay a combination of earnings-related and flat rate

Germany 98 days; fully paid - Since 2007: 12 months plus 2 extra reserved for the partner; paid at 67% of earnings. Unpaid leave 3 years max.

Netherlands 112 days; fully paid 2 days; fully paid Since 2009: 26 weeks per parent, unpaid (before 13 weeks). Exception: civil servants receive 75% of earnings

Portugal 120 days; fully paid 5 days fully paid; 15 optional days fully paid

3 months unpaid

Bulgaria 315 days, paid at 90% of earnings

- 450 days up to child’s 2nd birthday, paid at flat rate; plus 6 months for the mother (unpaid) and 6 months for the father (unpaid).

Hungary 180 days (6 months) at 70% of pay

5 days; fully paid 18 months paid 70% of earnings and 12 months paid at flat rate

UK 365 days of which 6 weeks at 90% of earnings, 33 weeks flat rate.

14 days; paid at flat rate

91 days unpaid after one year of employment

Sources: Kovacheva et al. (2007); Den Dulk and Doorne-Huiskes (2007); Moss (2009).




Table B. Public childcare provision

Country % of children in formal childcare (aged 0-2)

Childcare costs: % of family net income

Childcare shortage/coverage

Sweden 65% (2003) 7% Guarantee of municipal childcare place for children aged 0-7

Finland 25% (2003) 7% Guarantee of municipal childcare place for children aged 1-5 full time and aged 6-12 after school

Germany 9% (2001) 6% Law that children over 3 have the right to be in a financed or subsidized childcare facility

Netherlands 22% 25% More or less an equilibrium between supply and demand

Portugal 22% (2002) 25% Restriction in coverage: target set to cover 20% of children under 3

Bulgaria Approx. 10% of 1–3 age group (2003)

No informationavailable

Decline in number of creches

Hungary 6-8% (2003) 9% Extensive coverage (90%) of kindergartens for the age group 3-6; downward tendency

UK 26% (2003) 27% National childcare strategy created mainly part-time places and targeted at 3 and 4 year olds; moving to full coverage

Sources: Den Dulk and Doorne-Huiskes (2007); Plantenga and Remery (2005).




Table C. State incentives for flexibility in each country

Country Encouragement of part-time work and flexible working

Sweden Working parents entitled to reduce working hours by 25% on reduced pay but with the option of returning to full-time employment

Finland Legislation giving parents in full-time jobs the right to work part time; reduction is compensated financially until the child is 3

Germany Every employee in a firm with at least 15 employees and who has worked for 6 months has the right to demand a part-time job; the employer can refuse if the firm is unable to change its work organization; part-timer has no right to return to full-time work

Netherlands The Equal Treatment of Full and Part-timers, Working Hours Adjustment Act: legislation giving all workers the right to reduce or extend working hours; employer must comply unless contrary to serious business interest; request possible once every two years

Portugal Employer-led; parents of children up to age 12 are entitled to work part time and to have flexible working hours

Bulgaria Legislative changes and policy programmes in 1990 meant to encourage flexibility; changes in Labour Law 2001 gave employees more options for reducing working hours or working part time; childcare is not flexible nor are leave policies

Hungary Legislative changes took place in 2005, meant to make part-time work more desirable for employers

UK State-run work-life balance campaign in 2000; legislation in 2002: right to request flexible working arrangements for parents of young children (working hours, days or place of work); employer can refuse for business reason e.g. additional costs

Sources: Kovacheva et al. (2007); Plantenga and Remery (2005).



Abendroth and Dulk 255Ta

ble

D.

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

W

ork

pres

sure

Wor

k ho

urs

Chi

ldre

n

at h

ome

Car

e

resp

onsi-

bilit

ies

Job

co

ntro

lFl

exib

le

star

ting

an

d

finis

hing

ti

mes

Com

pres

sed

wor

k w

eek

Wor

king

fr

om

hom

e

Supe

rvis

or

supp

ort

Col

leag

ue

supp

ort

Info

rmal

he

lp w

ith

dom

estic

Ta

sks

Paid

do

mes

tic

help

Part

ner

Qua

lity

of

soc

ial

life

Qua

lity

rela

tions

hip

rela

tives

Abs

ence

of

con

flict

w

ith

part

ner

Satis

fact

ion

with

wor

k-lif

e ba

lanc

e

-.34

0**-.

213**

-.05

4**-.

043**

.113

**-.

002

.001

-.02

2.2

22**

.171

**-.

052**

-.03

1**.0

32**

.425

**.2

67**

.158

**

Wor

k pr

essu

re

.214

**.0

48**

.077

**-.

043**

-.03

9**

-.00

8.0

28*

-.19

4**-.

113**

.041

**.0

45**

,020

-.18

1**-.

075**

-.04

2**

Wor

king

ho

urs

.002

.036

**.2

35**

.101

**.0

32**

.099

**-.

128**

-.15

9**.0

84**

.139

**-.

013

-.14

6**-.

024*

-.00

4

Chi

ldre

n at

ho

me

.0

23*

.101

**.0

37**

-.01

9.0

51**

-,01

4-.

026*

-.01

1.1

34**

.294

**-.

122**

-.04

1**-.

072**

Car

e re

spon

sibi

litie

s

-.01

2-.

051*

*-.

014

-.08

3**

-.04

6**-.

043**

.040

**,0

02-,

014

-.07

6**-.

023*

.031

**

Job

cont

rol

.2

92**

.022

.299

**.1

62**

.055

**.0

22.1

91**

.077

**.1

01**

.057

**.0

64**

Flex

ible

st

artin

g an

d fin

ishi

ng

.152

**.3

87**

.102

**.0

69**

-.00

7.0

27*

.012

.049

**-.

018

-.01

0

Com

pres

sed

wor

k w

eek

.359

**.0

34**

.032

**.0

27*

.006

-.01

2.0

03.0

00.0

00

Wor

king

from

ho

me

.098

**.0

64**

-.01

1-.

009

.022

.034

**-,

011

-,00

2

Supe

rvis

or

supp

ort

.5

34**

-.02

1-.

016

.036

**.1

83**

.101

**.0

34**

Col

leag

ue

supp

ort

-.01

7-.

041**

.020

.170

**.1

09**

.035

**

Info

rmal

hel

p D

omes

tic

task

s

.1

24**

-.12

1**-.

033**

.019

-.04

6**

Paid

dom

estic

he

lp

.077

**.0

17.0

34**

.004

Part

ner

.0

60**

-.00

2-.

002

Qua

lity

of

soci

al li

fe

.396

**.1

37**

Qua

lity

of

rela

tions

hip

with

rel

ativ

es

.1

34**




Anja-Kristin Abendroth is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Sociology/ICS, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. She is working on her dissertation within the con-text of the project ‘Labour Market Inequalities between Men and Women in Europe’, funded by the European Science Foundation. She received her Master’s degree in Sociology in 2008 at Bielefeld University in Germany. Her research interests lie in the interplay of work and family life, labour market inequalities and cross-national compara-tive research.

Laura den Dulk is associate professor at the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Public Administration, The Netherlands. Her main area of expertise is cross-national research regarding work-life policies in organizations in different welfare state regimes. Current research interests include the management of work/life policies and the social quality in European workplaces. Her latest co-edited book is Quality of Life and Work in Europe (Palgrave, in press).

Date submitted June 2009Date accepted May 2010



Documents

Work, employment and society Support for the work-life 25 ... A. and den Dulk, L. (2011...across countries (Den Dulk and Van Doorne-Huiskes, 2007; OECD, 2007). While there has been